Was Radanovich looking out for our best interests?
Oil that is
Macaulay is a true gentleman

Letters to the editor for Wednesday March 26, 2008 edition

(Updated: Wednesday, March 26, 2008, 11:09 PM)

Was Radanovich looking out for our best interests?

Dear Editor:

The article in the Sierra Star's March 14 edition entitled, "Radanovich votes no on tax act" would lead a person to believe that our esteemed representative was looking out for our interests in his district. Nothing could be further from the truth.

How stupid does Congressman George Radanovich think we are? Did Mr. Radanovich actually say that "...the majority in this Congress ... are determined to vilify the oil and gas industry for merely being successful -- making profits" or is he merely being facetious? Did Mr. Radanovich really say that "prices have already increased by nearly 40 percent since the Democrats took control of Congress," or is he, once again, having a little fun with his constituents? What happened to our Republican president -- George W. Bush? (Oh, I know -- he just lets the Democratic Congressmen run roughshod over him.)

The Sierra Star should be more careful with its headlines. This article was a piece of propaganda, not a news story.

By the way, I am not a Democrat or a Republican. I am an Independent.

Carole Moore
Coarsegold

Oil that is

Dear Editor:

In the March 14 edition of the Sierra Star, Congressman Radanovich submitted an article entitled "Radanovich votes no on tax act." Radanovich relies on people's lack of understanding of who determines the price of oil to buy his argument. In the early 1900s the Seven Sisters oligopoly (Standard Oil, now Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, Gulf, Texaco, Shell, BP) was the cartel that controlled the price of oil. Then came OPEC. Today, the main driving factor controlling the price of oil is speculation of oil futures on the New York Mercantile Exchange and exchanges in London and Dubai. Speculators bid up the price of oil based on world events that may threaten the oil supply. For example: Katrina, Iraq, civil war in Nigeria and other parts of Africa, the threat of war with Iran -- essentially any disruption in oil producing areas. If the speculation factor was taken out, the price of oil based on demand would probably be less than half of the $110 per barrel it is now. Armed with this knowledge, isn't it a little disingenuous of Radanovich to suggest that Democrats, since 2006, caused oil to increase by 40 percent? Sounds like guilt by coincidence. Congressman Radanovich then says billions of dollars will go to renewable energy, but force domestic oil and gas producers to pay $16 billion to $21 billion in tax increases. Interestingly, Radanovich omitted the fact that oil and gas also gets subsidies that dwarf those going to renewables. Also the oil and gas producer profits are so obscene that the $16 billion to $21 billion tax represents a pittance.

To give you some perspective, Exxon Mobil alone in 2007 made a profit of $39.8 billion. Chevron made a similar amount. Now imagine how many billions the oil and gas producers collectively have made compared with $21 billion in additional tax.

Alan Cheah
Oakhurst

Macaulay is a true gentleman

Dear Editor:

This is in regard to Douglas Macaulay's letter to the editor. I have read the Sierra Star on a regular basis and really enjoy it. Having lived in Oakhurst for 10 years I have a great respect for Doug. We served on the Chamber of Commerce and numerous community events together. I was never so proud of his letter this week about Byrce Shears.

This letter is who he really is, a true gentleman by all accounts. I thank him for his constant professionalism, for those of us in business. We appreciate those that continue to be inspired by individuals like himself.

At my next BNI (Business Network International) meeting I will definitely bring his article up. I hope his mother is proud. She should be.

Ginny B. Rezzonico
Ventura